you can use this tool that i made to work out exactly which will give the better results: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=3169461

updated first post, new linky: http://crazyferretstudios.com/public/swtor/pvp/swtor_damage_compare_v1.2.xlsx

well, i did put some ideas up here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=326775 would love some feedback on them from as many people as possible.

battlemaster was never an achievement to begin with. you can literally go afk on ilum and hit battlemaster within a couple of weeks.

eh? what do you mean?

except that's not how it currently works. any half decent sage/sorcerer healer, and even some good commando/merc healers have the capacity to keep themselves alive whilst killing the enemy via dots.

why's that exactly? bearing in mind my mmo history is games where pve was optional and pvp was pretty much the only/best way to level up. don't sweat it though guy, all of those threads and posts of people saying they're moving to GW2 as soon as it comes out, as it offers exactly what i've described above (more or less). and you'll be fine here, "progressing" against people who share the same opinion... you know, all 5 of you. now, if you want to actually make a cohesive statement with some thought behind it, then go ahead. just because you might not like an idea or suggestion doesn't give you the right to tell me where or what to spend my money on. players like you are what STOPS progression, and what stifles creativity among developers. how many people came here wanting something different to the WoW model of gameplay? how many were all hoping SWTOR would offer something new and different? sorry man. but players like you, are what's caused this game to be no different to any others, and in many ways worse.

I've played in a few of those. i'm an avid MTG player.

except in 1.2 where gear will be purchased exclusively through medals earned in warzones... and teams at the top stay at the top because they have larger purchasing budgets to spend on more skilled players.

my most favorite thing ever, is if someone leaves halfway through a voidstar match, the new person joining immediately asks "how far did we get first round"? and then leave if they don't like the answer. so now i've taken to trolling them, and if someone leaves when we're going to win (due to DC'ing or whatever), if the new person joining asks that, i just tell them we're going to lose, and then lol when they leave.

the reason why pvp gear progression is bad, is the same reason why the premier league (football, england) is bad. although many people don't realise it: Of the 45 clubs to have competed since the inception of the Premier League in 1992, four have won the title: Manchester United (12 titles) Arsenal (3), Chelsea (3) and Blackburn Rovers (1). A major criticism of the Premier League has been the emergence of the so-called "Big Four" clubs.[72][73] With the exception of Blackburn Rovers in 1994–95, only three clubs have won the Premier League title – Manchester United (twelve titles), Arsenal and Chelsea (three times each). In addition, Manchester United have not finished outside the top three since the formation of the Premier League. From the 1996–97 season onwards, the "Top Four" (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United) have dominated the top four spots, and thus places in the UEFA Champions League (qualification was one club for the first four seasons, increased to two clubs in 1997, three in 1999 and four since 2002). The benefits of qualification, especially increased revenue, are believed to have widened the gap between the "Top Four" clubs and the rest of the Premier League.[73] Arsenal are second with 16 top four finishes, followed by Liverpool with 12 and Chelsea with 11. The team who have appeared in the top four on the most occasions, and are not part of this "Big Four", is Newcastle United, having finished in the top four on five occasions, but not since the 2002–03 season. In May 2008, then Newcastle United manager Kevin Keegan said the "Big Four"'s dominance threatened the division, stating: "This league is in danger of becoming one of the most boring but great leagues in the world."[74] Following Keegan's comments, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore defended the league, saying, "There are a lot of different tussles that go on in the Premier League depending on whether you're at the top, in the middle or at the bottom that make it interesting."[75] The dominance of Chelsea and Manchester United has led some to believe that the "Big Four" has contracted to a "Big Two"; no club other than these two has won the Premier League since 2004 and, as of May 2011, 20 of the last 27 major domestic trophies have gone to either Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford.[71] The years following 2009 marked a shift in the structure of the "Big Four" with two new clubs, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City, vying for top four places to secure Champions League football. In the 2009–10 season, Tottenham pipped Manchester City to finish fourth becoming the first team to "break" the top four since Everton in 2005, with both Manchester City and Aston Villa also finishing above one of the "Big Four" teams. In 2010–11, Manchester City finished third – the first time a team has broken into the top three since Newcastle did so in the 2002–03 season. This has continued into the 2011–12 season. Criticism of the gap between an elite group of "super clubs" and the majority of the Premier League has continued, nevertheless. One of the main criticisms levelled at the Premier League is the increasing gulf between the Premier League and the Football League. Since its split with the Football League, many established clubs in the Premier League have managed to distance themselves from their counterparts in lower leagues. Owing in large part to the disparity in revenue from television rights between the leagues,[77] many newly promoted teams have found it difficult to avoid relegation in their first season in the Premier League. In every season except 2001–02 (Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers and Fulham) at least one Premier League newcomer has been relegated back to the Football League. In 1997–98 all three promoted clubs were relegated at the end of the season. TL:DR - the winners get more money, and can therefor buy better players, which keeps them at the top. in terms of SWTOR, the winners get more medals, and can therefor buy more gear, which keeps them at the top. it's important to understand that when two teams of equal skill come together, it SHOULD be an even match, but if one of those teams outgears the other, it's an unfair advantage. using football as an analogy again... open pvp should have the gear differences and such, because it's considdered a random encounter. it's like some major football star heading down to his local park and joining in the game that's happening down there with a bunch of amateurs... whichever team he joins is likely to win, but that's the nature of it. but when you're talking about matchmaking and rankings, you really should aim for the most equalised format possible.

gear should only matter in some aspects of an mmo. guild wars proved that, guild wars 2 is going to absolutely bullet point it.

well, alacrity is beneficial to some classes. i mean, as a sage/sorc you'd probably want alacrity over accuracy, right?

it's not too late for them to get things on a track which would allow for expansion without fault. for example, if they changed the system now, it would mean that later on in the game there could be pvp perks which were non gear dependant and focused on players abilities, and teamwork. perks which could be earned through topping the ratings by being actual good players, rather than stomping undergeared players with your expertise gear.

don't sweat it man. i'm always open to criticism, and i'll be the first to admit there are flaws with some of my ideas. the concern about warzones is valid, but at the same time it begs the question: if gear is that important (like it is right now) then how is any form of ranked/rated warzone system going to be skill based? how are you ever going to truly know who's the best player out there, when it relys more on what gear people are in to generate the wins/losses? the principal of pvp outside of ilum is more for people leveling up, not the intention of having people get off of ilum and go elsewhere. and i'm afraid you've misread the maths. it's not ~35k valor for the entire fight, it's ~1k for the entire fight on a per-player basis, not ~1k per kill. (<base valor> * (1 + <sum of valor bonus>) * (1 - (20 * (<winner lvl> - <defender lvl>)) / 100)) / <total players involved in kill> * <total enemies killed> (500 * (1 + 0.8 - 0.3) * (1 - (20 * (50 - 50)) / 100)) / 24 * 36 edit: a couple of other reasons why these systems might work well, is that it removes the whole expertise problem from the warzone system. regardless of anyones playstyle (pvp vs pve) they would have the exact same stats within the warzones, and of course then due to player skill, the guys who pvp day in day out are going to be the ones who win... because it's what they do! expertise would still exist in open world combat though.

why is it unimportant that decisions are being made for us that we are actually both entitled and capable of making ourselves? most people wouldn't have a problem setting their game to medium if their computer couldn't handle maximum. in fact they would be more happy to do that, knowing that they had the choice.

any serious feedback? good or bad.

i'm not sure i understand...

unfortunately that might be too late. these should have been things in at launch (the openworld stuff particularly), a lot of damage has already been done. the sooner they change it the better.

well unfortunately for you, the developers would decide the distribution

not if that also meant you had 0 endurance the 4000 pool has to be divided among all of your different stats. not 4000 for one stat.

warzones the problem with warzones is that there is too much gear involved with who wins and who loses... regardless of how skilled teams are, the general consensus is that whoever has the most champion geared players will win. and there's some truth in that statement (although there are exceptions to the rule). and to go with that, being unable to queue a full group of eight players means that there is always some uncertainty as to whether the rest of your team is going to be geared as equally as your own group. with the advent of rated warzones coming up, it is more important than ever that this issue is resolved. when it comes to ranked/rated play, people who take pvp seriously do not like, or want any form of disadvantage, whether it's in the form of having to queue as half a group and hope you get a decent partner team, or being undergeared. or in the case of many pvpers, being OVERgeared is an equal annoyance... many of us dislike the idea that we only won because we had better stuff. so please, considder the following: allow full 8 man queuing. make group queues separate from solo queues. standardize stats in warzones. the way i envision stats working is fairly simple. there would be a stat pool of 4,000. which is distributed according to a players advanced class. so for example, a guardian/juggernaut might have: 1400 strength 1500 endurance 300 defence 100 crit 100 surge 200 power 200 shield 200 absorb while a sentinel/marauder might have: 1600 strength 1300 endurance 350 power 300 accuracy 200 crit 250 surge this would actively encourage stronger group play, players would no longer have the excuse of gear to fall back on, and there would still be veriety in playstyles due to talent trees and ability rotations. but most importantly it would ensure that every warzone is fair, and that any ranked/rated system attached to them rewards player skill rather than player gear. open world the problem with valor gains in open world combat involves a couple of issues. and those issues have their own knock on effects. currently the biggest issues are that you can only gain valor on ilum, and even then only in the designated pvp zone, which discourages openworld pvp before level 50. and that everyone involved in a kill gains the same amount of valor regardless of how many players took part in the kill. this actively encourages a zerg mentality... get as much people together into a giant blob and mow over anything smaller than you, even a group of 24 players killing a single person will reap massive rewards for what is, let's face it, a no skill encounter. combine this with the fact that openworld objectives are almost a non-issue, and it's hardly a surprise that the majority of the zone goes unused. what i'm about to propose could change that completely. currently the mathematical formula for valor is this (where <base valor> is 20): on kill, each player in group recieves: <base valor> * (1 + <valor bonus>) it's very simple... too simple. i love simple things but in this case a little complexity would make it a much better system and far more appealing. considder if the following happened: base valor increased to 500. players were rewarded valor outside of ilum, in fact they could be rewarded valor for player kills anywhere. players would recieve reduced to no valor for killing people significantly lower level than themselves. players would recieve increased valor for killing people significantly higher level than themselves. not only would controlling an objective on ilum increase your factions valor gain by 40% per objective, but it would LOWER the enemies valor gain by 10% per objective. valor was divided by the number of players involved in a kill. the mathematical formula would then be changed to the following: (<base valor> * (1 + <valor bonus>) * (1 - (20 * (<avg winner level> - <loser level>)) / 100)) / <players involved in kill> (if result less than 0, then 0) so how it then works in practice (couple of examples now) is: a group of 24 guys are roaming around on ilum, they see that they only control 2/5 objectives, and that the middle needs to be taken, so they make there way there but find 35 players defending it, they push on. one of two things can happen from this encounter! they can win, or they can lose. if they win, this is the valor calculation: (500 * (1 + 0.8 - 0.3) * (1 - (20 * (50 - 50)) / 100)) / 24 * 35 = 1094 valor per person on the attacking team (total, not per kill). if they lose, this is the valor calculation: (500 * (1 + 0.8 - 0.3) * (1 - (20 * (50 - 50)) / 100)) / 35 * 24 = 514 valor per person on the defending team (total, not per kill). a single player is roaming around on ilum, his faction currently has no objectives and his enemies control all of them. he runs into 15 enemies, they attack, he loses but manages to kill one of them before he does! go him! he gets: (500 * (1 + 0 - 0.5) * (1 - (20 * (50 - 50)) / 100)) / 1 * 1 = 250 valor they get: (500 * (1 + 0 - 0.5) * (1 - (20 * (50 - 50)) / 100)) / 15 * 1 = 17 valor per person... damned zergers! and finally, the system has a built in diminishing return for players who enjoy ganking lowbies... essentially they lose 20% of their valor (after any other bonuses apply) for every level below them their target is, which means that at 5 levels below them, they would gain no valor at all. however on the other side of this, every level above a player their target is, they gain a 100 valor bonus. so a level 42 player killing a level 50 player would gain a whopping 800 extra valor! the average winner level is also a factor, so if a level 50 decided to travel to hoth, with his level 34 friend and kill a lowbie, their average winner level would be 42, and therefor still likely to have a diminished return on valor gained. the whole purpose of the above system is to encourage fighting around objectives, and also to encourage players to roam around in smaller groups. this in turn would allow the developers to increase the population cap on ilum as players would be more evenly dispursed. it would also encourage smaller groups taking a chance at beating larger ones, as they would gain more from it.

putting it bluntly... you know open world pvp is failing when the objective is to kill lowbies to disrupt them hitting the same rank as you.

just want to point out, as an artist who works freelance in the games industry. this excuse makes no sense. you can atlas high resolution textures too, you know. thereby reducing the draw calls on the high resolution textures. regardless of that however, the most important issue here is that this is a player choice. it is not your choice to make, bioware, what settings i choose to run my game at, or what performance level is acceptable to me. it is my choice and mine alone. i respect the fact that not every pc out there is as powerful as mine, and i understand that mine isn't as powerful as some. but it is MY decision what settings to run my games at, not yours. so give me the choice or i'll find a game that will.

KDS (imperial guild) did this on TOFN server, it lasted all of 45 mins before they got wiped by a pug ops group half their size (they were running two full ops groups, all guilded/ventrilo etc). was fun, but that was just after the headstart anyway. nowadays i think people would rather valorfarm.